Latest / The You Project / #1956 The Weaponisation Of "Science Tells Us"... - Harps

Transcript

#1956 The Weaponisation Of "Science Tells Us"... - Harps · The You Project

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: I'll get a champions of taps. Who else would it be?
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: I hope you're bloody terrific. So I just wrote a post.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: I just read a post on me keyboard. I am
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: having regular conversations. I haven't really thought this through to clearly.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I know what I want to say, where I want
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: to go, But if it's a bit stumbley bumbly, fuck it,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: just go with me because I think the ideas and
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: I think the subject matter is really relevant and important
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: and interesting. And I feel like, so what am I talking?
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: But you probably know because you read the post or
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: you read the synopsis or the title, So of course
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about the weaponization of the term science tells us.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: I feel like, I don't know how you feel, but
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: I feel like, in twenty twenty five, we've never fucking
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: heard that statement, that cliche, that expression, that's sentence. More often,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: where people to shut something down, or to manipulate someone
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: or control someone, or to win an argument or end something,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: they go, well, science tells us. And then when you
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: do dig a little deep, you go which science, And
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: invariably they don't know which science? And if even if
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to be smart ass, here I just think
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: that we need to be really clear about what we're
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: saying and what we're listening to, and what we give
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: our time and energy and focus. Because when someone says
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: something to you, even including me, I always say, don't
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: don't trust me or believe me just because I say something,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Go and put it under the microscope. If you think
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: what I say is interesting or maybe relevant or even
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: wildly mind blowing, still go test it. You still need
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: to learn for yourself. You still need to understand things
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and think critically and make decisions and discuss your own
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: purpose path through all of that. With that in mind,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: the whole kind of I don't know that the habit
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: that seems to be sweeping through social media or the
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: regular occurrence of people just not just social media, but
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: in conversations and mainstream media, out and about, you know,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: everywhere where people kind of just think that they're going
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: to win or prove that they're right by prefacing or
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: ending something with you know, science tells us or that
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: science well, that's what we know, or that's what the
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: research says. But when pressed, people generally can't cite the research.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: People generally can't tell you how many people were in
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: the study, Where was the research done, who did the research,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: who funded the research, When was the research. Was it
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: done in nineteen seventy four or was it done last week?
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Tell me about the research, tell me about the science.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: And the truth is ninety nine percent? Maybe the truth.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: See that's me making sit up. My feeling is that
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: probably around ninety nine percent of people don't actually know
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: who did the research, where the research was done, what
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: the protocol was, if it was funded, if the researchers
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: or the investors in the research, or the funders of
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the research had a particular commercial interest in the outcome. Well,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: of course they do. That's why they fucking fund it. Mostly,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: And so I don't think and this is not me
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: disrespecting science. I love science. I'm finishing a science doctorate.
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: You know that, I've got another degree in exercise science.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: I love science. But guess what science is flawed. Science
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: is not a perfect thing. People do science. People do
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: science who have got agendas. People do science who get
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: things wrong. People do science who then interpret the data
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: the way that they think the data should be interpreted,
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: because quite often they might want the data or the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: results to align with their initial hypothesis. So that their theory,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: their idea, their intention has proven correct, because that gives
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: them more credibility, makes them feel better about themselves. Of course,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: now am I saying everyone who does science is unethical
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: and selfish and not at all, not at all. But
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: what I am saying is that we need to be
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: more aware and conscious. And you may not be a
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: scientific person. I suggest most of my listeners, not particularly
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: which is not good or bad, but probably don't have
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: a science degree or a science background. I know some
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: of you do, some of you don't. Doesn't matter either way,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: and whether or not you have a science background or not,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: the same applies. You know. In twoenty twenty five, science
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: tells us like science tells us. That's not just a statement.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: It's not just a statement. It's a sales pitch. It's
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: a power play. It's a psychological Jedi mind trick all
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: rolled into one, trying to coerce or manipulate or convince
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: someone of something. People don't say science tells us to
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: invite a conversation. They say it to end a conversation.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: They don't say it to explore complexity and nuance, but
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: rather to shut it down. They don't say it to
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: illuminate truth, but rather to wear a lab coat of
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: credibility while often peddling an ideology, an influence, or even
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to sell you a fucking shake, or to sell you
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: a product or a program or a pill. Science tells us,
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: Science tells that we need more of this, and I'm
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: selling this, and statistics tell us that this. Many people
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: are undernourished because they're not having this, or they're whatever.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: It is right. It's like the ultimate mic drop. Science
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: tells us this is the best. Therefore I'm right, you're wrong,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: you should do this. Translation, I've outsourced my thinking to
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: an article I didn't read, from a study I didn't
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: really understand by researchers. I don't know any uni I've
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: never heard of. But nonetheless, I'm going to say this thing,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: and it makes me sound credible. It makes me sound smart. Now,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: is everybody who says that that. No, Some people go
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: science tells us and they know they've done. That's cool
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: and good on them. But I think that many of
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: us who are consumers, many of us who are students,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: many of us who are on the journey. It is
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: really easy when you want something to be true. You know,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: when you live in an echo chamber of belief or
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: idea or ideology or philosophy or behavior. You live in
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: an echo chamber that is moving in a certain direction
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: or embracing certain like I said, ideas or philosophies, then
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: it's very likely that you will pay attention to the
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: science in inverted commas that suits your argument. And while
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: that is very understandable and I'm not being critical, that
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: is part of the human experience. We want to be right.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: We don't want to be wrong. We want to belong
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: to a group. Part of the cost of belonging to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the group is that we all align and conform and
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: think the same. But the truth is that science is
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: not much of science is not set in stone. It's evolving.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: It's the way that we analyze it and understand it
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: and interpret it and test it is dynamic, you know.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: It's if we're being honest, science tells us is often
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: almost like a rhetorical sleight of hand to impress people,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: to impress the uninformed, or to manipulate the undecided, or
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: to win an argument with confidence and haughty words like
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: that word, haughty words not evidence, to sell products that
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: wouldn't stand up without the white coat. Cosplay and to
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: deceive or manipulate people who trust the word scientific more
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: than they do their own gut or intuition or understanding.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: And people use it to control narratives by masking authority
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: as objectivity. But the truth is that science is not that.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: Science is not dictatorial. Science is curious, Science is messy sciences.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: Some of science is uncertain and evolving, as I said,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: whereas fake science speak is rigid. It's convenient, and it
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: often comes with a call to action or an offer
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: or a discount code. So when someone says the science
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: tells us we need to pause, We need to go
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: what science? Which science? Who did that? Whose interpretation of
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: the data? How strong is the evidence? How many people
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: were in the study? Did it have ethical approval? Were
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: there twelve people in the study? Were there twelve thousand
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: people in the study? Is there a conflict of interest?
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Who was financing it? And does it actually apply to me?
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Because in the wrong hands, science really becomes less about
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: truth and knowledge and discovery more about disguised persuasion and manipulation.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: When I first started my PhD, I was early days,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: and I'm still not a great academic or researcher. By
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the way, but early days, I mean, you know, most
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: of you know what my study is about. It's about
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: metaperception and metaacuracy, understanding how people see us. But it
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: really insects with all mind stuff, meta meta cognition, thinking
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: about thinking, theory of mind, thinking about or understanding or
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: having an insight into how other people think. And then metaperception,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: understanding how others see us, and all of that stuff.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: But it's all around mind stuff, and it's all it
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: all falls loosely under the banner of social awareness, self awareness,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: situational awareness. And so in the first week also I
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: can't remember, but it was very very early days. I
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: mean this was twenty nineteen November one I started. So
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: I'm going to say in the first week or weeks,
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: I decided that I would see what the research, what
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: the literature said. Remember, and I'm looking at papers and
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: research up to about fifty years old, So from the
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: seventies until now, I tried to get a definition of
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: or clarity around self awareness. And I thought, what is
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: I have my own idea of what self awareness is,
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: but what does the science say? What does the science
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: say about self awareness? So I had to look in
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: a whole bunch of different kind of areas of psychology
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: and human behavior, and organizational psych and social psych and
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: clinical psych and all the psychs and all the different
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: kind of departments or areas that are researched, and I
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: reckon in an hour, I found in the science, in
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: the science, in the research, in the highest level PhD
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: and post doc research, ten definitions, give or take, of
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: self awareness, and none of them were the same. There
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: was intersecting kind of ideas, and there was some consistency,
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: some inconsistency, some familiarity between the definitions. But what was
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: an Of course, now I look back and I go
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: I was naive to think that there would be one
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: unifying kind of definition of self awareness that everyone in
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: science and everyone in research, no matter which area of
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: research they are in, what area of research they're in,
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: everybody uses, Oh, Craig, here's the definition that. Well, of course,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: it doesn't work like that. And so even when we
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: look at something which is really fundamental, and all of
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: us have an idea, we all have heard the term
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: self awareness, we all have a somewhat of an understanding
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: of what self awareness is. And even with something as
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: common and familiar as that term, the science says different things.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: The science says different things, so you go, well, fuck,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: if we can't even have a total convergence or consensus
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: on what the fuck self awareness is, no wonder everything
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: else is fucking messy. So you know the the just
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: trust the science, that idea, just just trust the science. Well,
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: who's fucking science? And by the way, nah, there's a
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: big fat nah, like, listen to the science, but make
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: sure it's science. Make sure or read the science, but
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: make sure it's science. Make sure that it's not someone
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: else's story about someone else's research, or someone else's idea
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: of someone else's research. And by the time you get it,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: it's fifteenth hand and it's not science at all. It's
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: a story about something that that person is fifteen steps
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: away from what started as research ended up fifteen versions
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: later as something else, with the person still telling us
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: this is what the science says. So we need we
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: need to keep in mind a few things that I
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: want to share with you, so one in a particular
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: order of importance. So trust the science needs an asterisk
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: because science evolves. So what's true today? We go, well,
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: this is scientifically valid today, but tomorrow it might not
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: be because it might be partially or totally disproven, and
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: that's not a flaw, that's actually a strength of science.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: But it also means that we shouldn't treat our current
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: findings as gospel, as unequivocal as we well, we might
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: find out. We might find out one day that this
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: is this is partially true, but there's more to it
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: than we originally thought. As we tend to, we tend to.
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: I guess there are some areas of science if we're
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: talking about physics and so on. But even like when
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: we think about what we used to go, oh, this
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: is how the brain works. Even twenty years ago, people
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: are like no, Like that was hard science, that was neuroscience.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: There was like this is what the brain does, this
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: is what it doesn't do, this is how it works.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: Now in twenty five we're going fark on hell, hands
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: in the air, emoji, who knew that the brain does
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: all this other shit as well? And by the way,
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: have you heard about the gut biome? Oh my god, right,
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: what was science around how our gut now microbiome worked
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: twenty years ago is completely different now, And it's not
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: because anyone had bad intentions necessarily. Twenty years ago, But
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: now a light's been turned on more research, more funding,
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: more understanding, more awareness, and what we currently know about
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: the brain and the gut, biome and the human body
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: broadly speaking, and physiology broadly speaking, and medicines and dare
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: I say it, even fucking vaccines right what we currently
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: think to be absolute science. Some of that may be
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: much of that in fifty years or even five years,
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: but definitely in fifty years, twenty years, people will look
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: back and go, what the fuck were those dummies thinking?
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: What were they fucking thinking? Now that's people who are
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: currently running around beating their chest and pointing their finger
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: and telling the world that the science says this. Science
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: is important, Science matters, Science is crucial. But we need
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: to we need to also be open minded and aware
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: and understanding and humble in the way that we research
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: and talk and think. Knowing that much of what and
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: I've said this before, but wind the clock back two
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: hundred years and all of the stuff or much of
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: the stuff that we know and do and understand today
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: with science and research and technology and medicine, it would
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: have it would have been completely fucking in their minds
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: two hundred years ago, impossible, not like not improbable, impossible, inconceivable,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: inconceivable that I can be sitting in my office today
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: talking to you, and then you have a device and
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: tomorrow you're listening to me. You've got this little thing
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: in your ear and you're hearing me, and you're being
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: inspired or confused or educated or informed or whatever the
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: fuck you're being by me. Well, that can't happen. But
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: it happens, right because as technology and science and understanding
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: and researching all of these things evolve, there now understanding
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: of what is possible, what is right, what humans have
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: the potential to do, be create, It changes, It changes,
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: So science evolves, understanding evolves. Number two why we shouldn't
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: trust the science. Cherry picking is like rampant people often
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: cite a study or part of a study that suits
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: their agenda while ignoring the full body of evidence or
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: contradictory findings. I remember years ago reading two books simultaneously.
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: I think one was called from Memory. This is a
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: long time ago. It was about two thousand, so twenty
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: five years ago, fucking you fuck. One was called protein Power.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: I think that's what it was called. And I forget
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: the other one. But essentially I back in the old days,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: I was often reading two or three books at once, right,
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: i'd have a book work, I'd have a book at home.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: I remember on the same day reading something in the
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: first book Protein Power, and something in the second book,
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: which basically these two books had almost diametrically opposed viewpoints
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: or science. And I remember reading one saying essentially, I
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: think we need two to two point five grams of
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: protein per kilo of body weight or something like that.
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: I can't exactly remember what, and then reading later in
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: the day in this other book that essentially the opposite
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: or very very different ideas or recommendations or science. And
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: then when I went to the back of the book,
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: they both were references, they both had site, they're both referenced,
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: they both had citations. I went into the back of
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: the book and I went and I found the research.
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: I'm like, wow, both of these things that these authors
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: are saying are very different. Firstly, they're talking about the
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: same thing but with completely different science, and both of
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: their claims are backed with science. And that was one
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: of the first times for me as a young scientist
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: and trainer and want to be researcher and understander of
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: stuff that I went ah, it's like somebody pulled back
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: a curtain because I was probably a little bit in.
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: The science says that, So that's what it is. Just
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: like for a long time, and you've heard this way
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: too many times, but it doesn't go away and it
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: doesn't stop being true. I taught the food pyramid for
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: a decade or more, maybe two decades, I don't know,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: way too fucking long, because I believe the science and
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: the science was, well, this is the best way to eat.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: You know, there's been lots of work and research done
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: on this, and blah blah blah bah and high high carbohydrate,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: low fat, you know, high sugar at times. You know,
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: a lot of this and a little of that, and
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: have it in this order and have this much of that.
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: That that's the way to eat. And by the way,
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: we know it's the way to eat because the science
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: tells us. Now in twenty twenty five, we know different,
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: we know different, and maybe in two thousand and thirty
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: five that there will be I'm almost certain there'll be
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: a change in thinking or a change in understanding or awareness,
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: or there will be new data or new interpretations of data. Okay,
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Idea number three around this trusting the science you know
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: carefully is is the space between correlation and causation. And
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: so causation is obviously if I do this, then that happened.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: So I cause that if I if I jump out
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: the window now and I jump onto the concrete and
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: I'm upper floor and in my sixty year old body, I
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: land in my bare feet, well I'm probably going to
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: break an ankle or create a stress fracture, you know.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: So that's I did this thing and I created this outcome.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: That's causation. Correlation is most of you know, this of course,
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: is where two things might be linked. They might be
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: related or associated, but it doesn't mean that one causes
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: the other. But what a lot of people will do
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: in the interests of convincing people, or selling people, or
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: coercing or manipulating people, or let's be honest, bullshitting deceiving people,
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: is that they will use something which might be correlated,
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: but instead of talking about correlation, they will talk about causation.
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: They will say, people who do this up in this state,
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: inferring that if you do that, like if you don't
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: need enough of this, then this then you will have
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: low bone density. Well, maybe there's a correlation, but maybe
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: low bone density is about twenty six variables, not the
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: one single one that you're talking about. So we need
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: to be really mindful of and careful of understanding the
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: space between causation and correlation. Number four on our list
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: is scientific literacy varies, and so often people who are
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: talking about stuff, or even people who are analyzing research,
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: lack the I need to be careful here, but the
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: training I guess to evaluate to evaluate research quality, so
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: often dodgy or poorly designed studies can be used to
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: justify claims. I remember, so there was a I won't
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: say what it is, but this this is interesting. The
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: other day I saw a product which is for old people.
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: I mean old people, I mean people in their eighties
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: and beyond. And it was a it was a product,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: it was a food supplement, and it said this increases
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: muscle mass by something like two to three percent in
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: eight weeks. Increases And I'm like, well, what what so
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: drinking something builds muscle And I'm thinking, what about all
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: the other variables? And so I went down the whole
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: chat GPT and Claude rabbit hole trying to find the
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: science behind that claim. And it was a and was
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: there any research? Oh my god, like was the research it?
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: It was so dodgy, it was so it was so
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: inadequate for what we would call scientifically valid research and
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: data and interpretation, you know, of the data. And if
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: ten out of ten is great science, this was a
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: one out of ten research thing. There were very few
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: people involved in the study most scientific studies, depending on
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: the kind of study. But we want at the bare minimum,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: we want one hundred people involved in research if we're
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: going to be using humans in our research to make
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: it somewhat valid. Hopefully more, but you know, so we
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: just need to be careful of and aware of the
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: size of the research or the number of participants in research.
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: Who did it, where it was done, and it was
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: an academic institution or was it Brian at Hisloody Personal
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: Training Center in Bundua shout out to Brian. I wonder
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: if there is a Brian who has a pet center
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: in Bundua or Scott doesn't matter who it was. But
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: you know, what I'm saying Number five is that science
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: is often used as a weapon, right And I spoke
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: about that before, where people weaponize these things to win
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: basically to win to shut down a conversation or to
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: shut down any other kind of thinking or perspective. And
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: part of that I think is well, obviously because they win,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: they want to control. They want to win, control, manipulate.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: And also you find that with some people, their science,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: like what they think, what they espouse, what they preach,
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: is very intertwined with their identity. Now, if you have
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: a scientific perspective or viewpoint that is strong, and you
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: are a big advocate for that, then your identity, your
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: sense of self and confidence and who you are and
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: what you're teaching and how you're perceived is intertwined with that. Well,
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: when a particular scientific viewpoint is intertwined with your identity,
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: then that makes you pretty much unteachable. That makes you
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: pretty much unteachable when it comes to unlearning and relearning
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: should something new or different or better arise on the
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: scientific horizon. But in truth, real science encourages critical thinking.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: It encourages us to consider the fact that maybe we
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: got it wrong, that maybe our protocol wasn't awesome, that
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: perhaps we're partly right but also partly wrong. And my
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: experience as an academic and a pro academic is that
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: I have consistently got things gotten, consistently gotten things. I've
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: consistently got things wrong. Then I've got so many fuck
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: on things wrong. I have consistently gotten things wrong. This
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: is what the only child does when he's in a
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: room by himself, talking to no one in particular at
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: this point in time. But you're getting it. I've gotten
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: so many things wrong back on target, And I think
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: that's part of the liberation of being truly or trying
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: to be open minded while also thinking critically, also loving
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: the science and doing the research. But also we don't
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: want blind obedience or conformity. So the next thing we
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: want to possibly consider it, and you've probably heard about
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: this most people have, is that, of course a lot
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: of research is funded, often corporate funding. So in other words,
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: companies who would really like a particular outcome in the science,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: because if the science is supportive of what it is
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: that they do or sell or pedal, then that's going
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: to help them with credibility and persuasion and bums on
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: seats or products in front doors or whatever it is.
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: So being aware that you know there are even researchers
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: who are good people with good intentions confine themselves in
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: situations where there is a level of expectation and pressure
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: to produce certain science, science that is reflective of and
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: aligned with what the backers, what the financiers of that
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: research would like to see. And you've got to remember
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: this too. I didn't really get this until I started
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: doing my doctorate, but because I've not really been around
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: a lot of people who are so because of their
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: job right, spending so much time applying for grants for
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: this and that, you know, so we don't really I
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: think a lot of us don't realize how much you know,
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: staying in the academic game quite often is about can
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: you get funding for that research? And there is a
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: real level of I guess anxiety and pressure and uncertainty
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: for many academics who don't know where the money is
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: going to come from. And so when someone shows up
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: with some dough to fund or support research. We're all human.
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: We're human who wants to piss off the person that's
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: in inverted common from one of a better term, not
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: exactly precise, but paying the bills well, and as as
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: also humans who want to build rapport and connection with
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: people that can help them and they you know, we're emotional, psychological,
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: sociological creatures who who want to see certain things, certain outcomes.
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: It's it can be tough in the middle of that. Now,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: I'm not talking about people's integrity here or lack of integrity.
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it's like having research which is
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: funded by a particular organization that would like to see
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: a particular outcome or particular results with the research that
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: is going to make it tough. That is going to
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: make it tough. Two to go. So my second last
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: one is falling for like we're talking about here, why
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: trusting the science needs an asterisk, falling for the over
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: generalization of things, like even good studies usually apply to
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: a specific population or conditions, so that the science or
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: the data or the research or the findings might be
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: absolutely true and relevant and meaningful and helpful and valuable
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: to old mate over there, but they might not depending
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: on what the research is about, they might not at
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: all be relevant or helpful for you. And so knowing
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: that a lot of the research is population specific or
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: person specific or conditions specific, it doesn't mean it doesn't
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: mean that that necessarily applies to you or me or everyone.
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: So we need to be careful when we've got research
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: that targets specific groups or populations or specific areas, especially
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: with certain conditions. You know, there might be something done.
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: I'm making this up in the moment, but some let's say,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: some correlation between a certain vitamin or hormone or drug
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: or something and its capacity to positively impact or treat
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: let's say Parkinson's. And so we know that, well, the
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: science seems to tell us that if we do take
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: this thing at this dose, there's a positive cognitive association
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: for people with partner data. Well that doesn't and may
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: that may or may not be true, but also it
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there's a positive cognitive association for you
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: or me. Right, So it's just understanding that there is
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: so much science that is not relevant to a lot
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: of the population, but some of this stuff gets globalized
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: and pushed out beyond the initial population that it was
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: aimed at and very much over realized. All right. Last one,
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: science isn't a person. So when someone says the science says,
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: they're usually interpreting or misinterpreting it, like it's almost like
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: they are the spokesperson for science. So I'm trying to
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: find the gap between the person who's saying this and
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: the actual science. Now, by the way, they could be
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: absolutely on the money, they could be totally correct. I'm
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: not assuming that they're trying to sell or manipulate, or
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: coerce or control. I'm not. But like I've said to you,
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: what we want to do is we want to perhaps
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: consider it, if we choose to consider it, and then
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: go and do a little bit of investigating ourselves. So friends,
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: things aren't always as they seem, and quite often when
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: science tells us, science does and really tell us at all.